3 ms·
Succinct and correct. I have been a regular donor to Wikipedia for years now, because I use the service heavily, support its mission, and like the access I have
by lr4444lr 10y ago
Succinct and correct. I have been a regular donor to Wikipedia for years now, because I use the service heavily, support its mission, and like the access I have to contribute to its vast body of knowledge. When the fundraising solicitations come around, I've typically been too busy to look into the financials and have always assumed they operated at near costs and had declining revenue. Now, perhaps Wikipedia has some unfortunate but real problems around editorializing, and they have to pay a growing army to keep the worst of the forces of troll-dom at bay with conscientious hired curatorial help. Otherwise, I see no other reason why they should have 300X the employees.
This is eye-opening, to say the least.
- apsec112 10y agoWikipedia staff don't edit content, fix pages, warn trolls, or ban vandals. That's all volunteer labor.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoAnd this is exactly the issue. Fund raising got to be "too" successful, which is to say at some point WMF did a fundraising round and they had more money than they needed, and rather than give that money back they spent it. And the next year, what ever it was they spent it on (could have been salaries or perks or what ever) seemed like "of course we need that thing we did it last year" and so they targeted to raise the higher amount, but they over shot again, and then spent more. This has been a trap for charitable organizations ever since they existed. Churches, clubs, museums, Etc. The second trap is embezzlement which happens all the time because, as a donation funded organization for some reason people often neglect strong financial controls. The article author is correct that unless corrected, this situation will kill the Wikimedia Foundation.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoSupporting many more languages and new projects like news and structured data should require more individual contributors and a corresponding management structure. Then of course you need HR to manage them, a fundraising organization that gets money from all over the world, and yet more people to handle the finances that have now gotten complicated. To me, it's a no-brainer that the WMF of today needs more than one employee. Whether it needs 300, I don't know, but that doesn't sound far enough off for me to quibble with them over it.
- lr4444lr 10y agoThey may need more than one, and I'm sure there are fixed or near-fixed labor costs pertaining to HR, legal, accounting, etc. but what business function besides content curation - which another commenter above claims is entirely volunteer, does WMF need that approaches even a linear growth rate to remotely justify the jump in orders of magnitude, let alone 300X?
- lern_too_spel 10y agoHere: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wolco 10y agoWikipedia hires php programmers as well. Last year I saw a posting on stackoverflow. Think the devop work required, project management, handling media, ever increasing storage needs, the managers, etc. 300 feels like too much but 80 could be a logical number.
- dpark 10y ago> I see no other reason why they should have 300X the employees. Well, that's a little unfair. When you measure from 1, virtually any number will look like an absurd multiple. Calling it 300x makes it sound ridiculous but for a company with $80MM in revenue, 300 employees doesn't seem to be unreasonable.
- lr4444lr 10y agoFair enough on the relative change, but what new core ongoing function does Wikipedia have since 2005 to merit the raw numbers?
- dpark 10y agoNo idea. I'm just commenting on the way the data is presented. 300 doesn't seem absurd to me. How many they actually need, though, I don't know.